One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Peter_Plato]

There is a failure to communicate, since you gave me a link saying what Planck time is, but you have not answered why it should be applied here. And that’s my question, has been my question for about 5 posts now and you won’t answer. Why should that number be applied here?

You argument amounts to “it shouldn’t be used because it might not be correct.” That isn’t an argument. Make a positive case for what is not included in the calculation and why that new number ought to be used, instead.

Empty criticism is just, well… …empty.

Until YOU make a case, Dembski’s number stands. He gave acceptable justification in his work. You haven’t made a case otherwise, other than to state it might possibly be higher without actually accounting for why it should be. What else should be included and, most importantly, WHY?

He didn’t include the number of rice paddies in China, either. So what? Why is that number relevant?

Read his work.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

It is soft tissue and not an isolated find. Now that we are looking for it more is being found.

But as Farsight001 pointed out, it was not soft tissue in the sense that it was wet,
organic material, simply that it was preserved in such a way that scientists could
in fact study it. Apparently, it was ALL fossilized, no soft, gooey, still pliable organ-
ic material in the sense that you are expressing.

And YESSS, I do keep saying that I understand how there are multiple examples
of this find still being made with other fossils, you need not repeat it again.

 

[Farsight001]

And what is so sacred about peer-reviewed journals anyway? The peers who review the journals often have the same biases as the author. Even in the most prestigious journals, there are always inaccuracies concerning theory and method.

not entirely true. While a bad egg does slip in occasionally, they tend to try to pick your “enemies” to peer review your proposed article. So if you’re arguing that this new fossil find should be classified as a “reptile-like mammal”, they’re going to try to give it to a guy who thinks it should be classified as a “mammal-like reptile”. Only about 1 in 50 submitted articles actually get published because scrutiny is so high. It’s the job of the reviewers to pick apart the article in every way they can. They can and do lose their position if they don’t try hard enough to do so. This helps combat bias.

 

[Peter_Plato]

When asked where it came from, you answered basically “from physics”. That’s not an actual answer. That’s like someone asking you where you heard a quote and you say “from a book.” Well which book? Where did you get this book? who wrote it? Why did you select this book over all the other available books?

---

uh…w00t?
—Grammar Nazi?

You sell yourself far short.

 

[Crossbones]

Thanks for the lesson, however, as to…

The IDer is not claiming “it’s wrong,” the IDer is merely asking for the opportunity to make a case BECAUSE evo hasn’t sufficiently done so. It isn’t so much a question of “it’s wrong” as “it isn’t definitively right.”

Farsight keeps insisting Dembski “is wrong,” in fact, “ridiculously wrong” when he hasn’t shown just cause for thinking that. The IDer claims evo doesn’t currently offer a completely “right” explanation and is proposing one that he suggests better explains the entire picture.
Individuals on this thread have pointed to gaps in evo theory that don’t make it wrong, just not completely right. Farsight goes far, far beyond that by claiming “ridiculously” wrong as the descriptor for ID.

That, in my eyes, reduces his credibility since he can’t bring himself to admit that he might be the one making possible errors somewhere. Unfortunately, some of your posts have come pretty close to his brand of inerrancy. He’s right merely BECAUSE others are, in his eyes, ridiculously wrong.

Skepticism is one thing. Dogmatic skepticism with regard to everything except one’s own perspective is another.

No, the IDer is, on average, claiming evolution is wrong. They are claiming it is wrong because their sacred texts said that God created everything in six days 10,000 years ago.

Farsight’s arguments on Dembski are reasonable, so I would just conclude that you don’t understand his arguments on probability. His frustration comes from repeating himself over and over again. He should give up the ghost, because it’s clear to me that you need to study probability and statistics to understand what he is trying to say.

I’m not even arguing on Dembski yet, as no one can even come close to explaining why 10^45 makes sense. You can guess I think it’s bunk because I said so when Buffalo brought it up, but why make an argument that your adversary can poke holes in for small mistakes like terminology (as Farsight has gone through) when your adversary can’t even make an argument on why it should even be a starting point for discussion.

 

[lightbeamrider]

HansTrappist;11568856:

There is plenty of scientific evidence for a Global Flood. Quit being silly.

Then where is it? Where is, in particular, the flood marker that should be easily found anywhere on earth?

Its not all literal and that is not the way it is written. The crossing of the Jordon can be both literal and figurative at the same time. As literal history and figurative in that it foreshadows baptism, deliverance by Christ. {Moses a Jesus figure}

Luke 17:27, “They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Jesus referenced Noah. There are the seven Noah Laws which are considered universal.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

 

[Farsight001]

The IDer is not claiming “it’s wrong,” the IDer is merely asking for the opportunity to make a case BECAUSE evo hasn’t sufficiently done so. It isn’t so much a question of “it’s wrong” as “it isn’t definitively right.”

So they’re not claiming its wrong. They’re claiming they want to make their case BECAUSE its wrong? Kind of a distinction without a difference.

Farsight keeps insisting Dembski “is wrong,” in fact, “ridiculously wrong” when he hasn’t shown just cause for thinking that.

Frankly, its not really my job to show just cause that its wrong. Its his job to properly support and give just cause for why its the right numbers and right formula. He has completely failed to do so, which is what I’m trying to get you to see. If he wanted to do this professionally, he should have written a paper on it, presented it to his peers, asked them to rip it apart, revise it, present it at a conference, argue its defense, discuss it with others, revise it, revise it, and revise it again, giving a lengthy reason for including everything he includes and excluding everything he excludes, and THEN producing his data. He did not do any of this.

The IDer claims evo doesn’t currently offer a completely “right” explanation and is proposing one that he suggests better explains the entire picture.

One that contradicts evolution and would thus necessary suggest not that evolution is not completely right, but rather that it IS completely wrong.

Individuals on this thread have pointed to gaps in evo theory that don’t make it wrong, just not completely right. Farsight goes far, far beyond that by claiming “ridiculously” wrong as the descriptor for ID.

And I gave several reasons for calling it ridiculously wrong. Why are you choosing to ignore those?

Skepticism is one thing. Dogmatic skepticism with regard to everything except one’s own perspective is another.

Hence my problem with creationists - their almost intrinsic dogmatic skepticism against evolution.

 

[edwest2]

Come on, what you insist that I do is find a definition for a scientific idea that in-
cludes a NONSCIENTIFIC ELEMENT such as God (no, I am not calling God an
“element”). Science does NOT discuss God, nor is it meant to do so. Evolution
does not make a comment on God, simple as that. You can highlight that BUC
factor all you’d like, but the mentioning of “By Chance” etc is merely the conse-
quence of being limited to the physical world.

I never made such a statement which contradicts what you just submitted.
Scientists can only, in honesty, say things like unguided, by change, and
so forth because that is the physical evidence alone says, and that is the
boundary which science is limited. Creationists will take that and FORCE
it to mean that God had absolutely nothing to do with all this. Such, I sub-
mit, is not the case, but merely a Creationist construct.

I couldn’t agree with you more that scientists have no right or authority to eliminate God, but that is not a real issue. It’s
an issue raised by Creationists, because Evolution does not tickle their personal fancies by explicitly saying “GOD.” In
response, guided by the preconceived notion that “there is a designer, therefore Evolution cannot be true, because Evol-
ution says there’s no God, and anyone who believes it is an atheist…,” embark on highjacking the scientific community
using the very technical-sounding name of “Intelligent Design,” working towards the goal of eliminating the Theory of Ev-
olution on the false premise that it denies God.

Non-theists consistently force it to mean that God had absolutely nothing to do with it. And when scientists spread what some might call “opinions” to the media, they violate their standing as scientists/biologists by crossing the line into attacking religion, which science is supposedly silent about. But if you teach at the University level, and voice anything positive about ID, for example, you can be disowned in writing, moved to another position or officially censured.

I would say that while half-interested teenagers took a science class in high school, they will spend many more years hearing that God/gods/supernatural just doesn’t exist, or for those who might think there’s something out there, was completely uninvolved in the process/topic. The mainstream media will continue to repeat that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Crossbones]

You argument amounts to “it shouldn’t be used because it might not be correct.” That isn’t an argument. Make a positive case for what is not included in the calculation and why that new number ought to be used, instead.

Empty criticism is just, well… …empty.

Until YOU make a case, Dembski’s number stands. He gave acceptable justification in his work. You haven’t made a case otherwise, other than to state it might possibly be higher without actually accounting for why it should be. What else should be included and, most importantly, WHY?

He didn’t include the number of rice paddies in China, either. So what? Why is that number relevant?

Read his work.

You say that Dembski has made an ‘acceptable justification’ in his work and you have told me that the number is the time it takes light to travel a Planck length. What does that have to do with the number of states a particle can transition to? Nothing.

So, if that’s Dembski’s justification, then it’s bunk. If it isn’t Dembski’s justification, then I don’t understand why you didn’t give it to me in the first place when I’ve asked over and over again.

And don’t say I’m asking you to do my research. You said it’s ‘acceptable’, so what is it?

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s kind of the point - no one really knows what the numbers mean, as they are arbitrary and no arrived at by any professional scientific methodology.

That wasn’t the point at all. It’s not that “no one” really knows what the numbers mean, it IS that YOU don’t know what the numbers mean. That does not make them arbitrary except to YOU and your “professional scientific methodology” which is quite content to rely on posters on fora to accurately depict what it is that source material contains within it.

As I pointed out long ago, in a galaxy far, far away - it seems - you have a penchant for ignoring source materials, opting to rely on the impressions and writings of posters to accurately portray the work of professional scientific methodology instead of doing the heavy lifting yourself.

Which is why you keep defraying conclusions by asking more questions in the hope that somewhere you stumble across unanswered questions that, then, allow you to conclude, “See, XXXX is wrong!” despite the fact that you have no idea whether that issue was ever addressed by XXXX. You rely on the familiarity of a third party with the work of XXXX to draw conclusions about what XXXX states. That, my friend, is dishonest and unscientific to the core. As a self-proclaimed “scientist” your professional ethics, if you have any, at least, should be sending chills down your spine and igniting colourful explosions between your eyeballs.

 

[Farsight001]

That wasn’t the point at all. It’s not that “no one” really knows what the numbers mean, it IS that YOU don’t know what the numbers mean. That does not make them arbitrary except to YOU and your “professional scientific methodology” which is quite content to rely on posters on fora to accurately depict what it is that source material contains within it.

As I pointed out long ago, in a galaxy far, far away - it seems - you have a penchant for ignoring source materials, opting to rely on the impressions and writings of posters to accurately portray the work of professional scientific methodology instead of doing the heavy lifting yourself.

Which is why you keep defraying conclusions by asking more questions in the hope that somewhere you stumble across unanswered questions that, then, allow you to conclude, “See, XXXX is wrong!” despite the fact that you have no idea whether that issue was ever addressed by XXXX. You rely on the familiarity of a third party with the work of XXXX to draw conclusions about what XXXX states. That, my friend, is dishonest and unscientific to the core. As a self-proclaimed “scientist” your professional ethics, if you have any, at least, should be sending chills down your spine and igniting colourful explosions between your eyeballs.

Your entire post amounted to nothing more than “no, you just don’t understand”. Maybe you should try some substance? You know - an actual argument or an attempt to explain what I apparently don’t understand? Or make an actual attempt to answer my questions. If you think I don’t understand, the best way to fix that is to help me understand, not to simply complain that I don’t understand.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Now this is getting absurd. You reject an organization for listing its own peer reviewed research? You really think an evo site is going to list them. Get real.

Moving the goal posts - you asked for peer reviewed ID papers - I gave you them.

I said “something more universal,” not one-sided, like your sources, but rather a site or
something covering ALL scientific journals, articles, histories, something like/similar to
that would be convincing.

And I didn’t exactly ask what you think I asked. If an ID paper was peer reviewed,
it should be found among other scientific papers. It should be found among other
scientist, not merely claiming to be peer reviewed or to be showing peer reviewed
material in support of their position.

Christians don’t ask Mormons if they are telling the truth, neither should a believer
in evolution buy into everything a Creationist source says on Creationist websites.

 

[DMC12]

No one told me. Science did. Or rather, the lack, thereof.

Theory? Perhaps you should refresh on what the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is.

Evolution is a possible explanation of the world. “A possible” explanation. There is no solid evidence for it. As it is, all these similarities and connections that seem to prove it are purely circumstantial evidence; there are many other explanations for them.

For you to speak of evolution with such faith is telling of how little you know of the “proof” for it. I use “proof” here to mean “empirical, visible, tangible evidence for a considered hypothesis”.

Show me. Prove to me that it is true. I am open minded. I have no prejudice. I also don’t believe blindly in it, however, like some (or many) others do, so you’ll just have to make your case.

even if i believe in evolution, i have to admit that yo are right there, until there is a solid proof all the theories remain as that, unlike religion, science must not be dogmatic, so you are right to dont believe in evolution until proven.

 

[edwest2]

I said “something more universal,” not one-sided, like your sources, but rather a site or
something covering ALL scientific journals, articles, histories, something like/similar to
that would be convincing.

And I didn’t exactly ask what you think I asked. If an ID paper was peer reviewed,
it should be found among other scientific papers. It should be found among other
scientist, not merely claiming to be peer reviewed or to be showing peer reviewed
material in support of their position.

Christians don’t ask Mormons if they are telling the truth, neither should a believer
in evolution buy into everything a Creationist source says on Creationist websites.

This inspires me to take more time looking into “creationist” web sites. Of those I’ve seen, a few offer little in the way of supporting documents, but a few offer a good range. What do Mormons have to do with this? What is a “believer in evolution”? Some here are presenting it as settled science, and science is silent about things it cannot study.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

There is a failure to communicate, since you gave me a link saying what Planck time is, but you have not answered why it should be applied here. And that’s my question, has been my question for about 5 posts now and you won’t answer. Why should that number be applied here?

Asked and answered. But again, it is part of the chain to determine the possible number of events since the beginning of accepted time.

Now answer mine - is this the only one you take issue with? Why are you focusing on this one?

 

[Farsight001]

even if i believe in evolution, i have to admit that yo are right there, until there is a solid proof all the theories remain as that, unlike religion, science must not be dogmatic, so you are right to dont believe in evolution until proven.

Good thing its already proven, then.

 

[Crossbones]

Asked and answered. But again, it is part of the chain to determine the possible number of events since the beginning of accepted time.

Now answer mine - is this the only one you take issue with? Why are you focusing on this one?

How have you answered it? I asked why it should be applied and your response is you answered that question. At least point to a post where you answered it. Very poor scholarship, you can’t even cite yourself.

 

[Farsight001]

Asked and answered. But again, it is part of the chain to determine the possible number of events since the beginning of accepted time.

Now answer mine - is this the only one you take issue with? Why are you focusing on this one?

In no way did you answer his question or even try to answer his question. And he’s focusing on it because you are so determined to avoid answering it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You say that Dembski has made an ‘acceptable justification’ in his work and you have told me that the number is the time it takes light to travel a Planck length. What does that have to do with the number of states a particle can transition to? Nothing.

So, if that’s Dembski’s justification, then it’s bunk. If it isn’t Dembski’s justification, then I don’t understand why you didn’t give it to me in the first place when I’ve asked over and over again.

And don’t say I’m asking you to do my research. You said it’s ‘acceptable’, so what is it?

I think if you want to draw conclusions about “Dembski’s justification” you ought to look into what “Dembski’s justification” is and whether it is a warranted one. You cannot rely on what I say to make any conclusions about whether Dembski is justified or not.

Take on the pirate not the parrot, if you have the courage to. But don’t claim you’ve defeated the pirate because you have subdued the parrot.

I am not going to turn to my grandmother and ask her to show me why I ought to believe Dembski has sufficiently accounted for all possible interactions since the universe began by including exponents dealing with elementary particles, Planck time and calculations on the duration of the universe and then decide whether Dembski is correct by the impressions of my grandmother.

For you to place your “trust” regarding such judgements on relative amateurs in the field is telling. If you can’t, on your own, make sense of it, and you find “crude translations” unhelpful, that does not provide an iota of reason for you to claim it’s all nonsense.

This is the Farsight method, which, as far as I can tell, is profoundly myopic, since he cannot seem to tell the difference between the pirate and the parrot. Of course, Mr. Magoo had similar issues and managed quite well, although those around him didn’t fair so well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In no way did you answer his question or even try to answer his question. And he’s focusing on it because you are so determined to avoid answering it.